Because the Nazi Holocaust was unique in that it was a pre-planned and methodical industrialised genocide. We don't say the Holocaust was bad just because 6 million people died. It was the manner of their death, and the cause which makes it so disturbing and why it is especially worth remembering. We are not talking about millions dying in famine or war, something which is awful, yes, but it is different to a powerful nation dedicating resources solely to kill a certain group of people as efficiently as possible. They were not killed for their money, their property, their land, for war, or for any other reason other than that Nazi Germany wanted them to be wiped off the Earth and never come back. That is why it is so different.

Part of the message of International Holocaust Remembrance day is to try and stop it happening again some day and the 'legacy of hope'. So although it obviously focuses on the holocaust many of the ceremonies also include messages about the present situation in Darfur etc.

I wholly agree with the OP, and it must be stressed that there is inequality in remembering and reflecting upon the different genocides that have occurred throughout the world.
Criticising the actions of Israel is now a taboo because of the Holocaust, and while I do feel for those who have lost family members, I am indifferent to those who avoid revision of their actions by playing the Holocaust card if you like (sorry to sound like a ****).

Anyway I offer my respects to the dead from these conflicts and disgusting displays of a lack of conscience.

(Original post by JakePearson)
For Christ's sake. The reason these other 'Holocausts' are not remembered on THIS DAY (or 25th Jan) is because the Nazi Germany Holocaust was the worst of them all, and because it is the date Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated.

Remembering other holocausts on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz is a bit like remembering the Pan-Am 103 victims on 9/11.

Who arbitrates which is the 'worst', nearly all the estimations of the systematic culling of indigenous americans in America's colonisation place the death tolls higher than that of the Nazi Germany Holocast, while most put it at 10 million, many range far greater (a number of academics have put it near 100 million).

I agree many zionists use their past to excess in justifications, however this article certainly makes some unwarranted parallels in a rather hyperbolic fashion.

There was a civil war in Rwanda. Jews were not at war with Germany. Moreover, they didn't have a plan to kill
all the Tutsi in the world, only those that lived in Rwanda. The Nazi "final solution" was to be implemented on a global scale.

There have been holocausts since the dawn of time. To my knowledge, the earliest known holocaust or rather an exodus is the expulsion of the lepers and the unclean people out of Egypt during the time of King Amenophis; they were forced to work the quarries in the wilderness. Whilst in the wilderness they were taught strict laws and not to worship the pagan gods.

(Original post by Folderol)
So even though it's a word that Israelis use for catastrophe and his office clarified thats what he meant, you continue you to misquote him.

Has it occurred to you that saying "oh, he MEANT catastrophe!" is not exactly doing much in favour of your argument? When a high-ranking member of the Israeli government says the Palestinians will bring upon themselves a catastrophe at the hands of all of Israel's might, I personally am not particularly concerned with whether he meant the Holocaust specifically or just any old catastrophe.

And like I've said to you before: let's assume he meant Holocaust, does make it true? If I say I'm going to commit a Holocaust you and then poke you, have I committed a Holocaust?

It doesn't, but it certainly reveals a rather worrying mentality. You sure you want people like that leading a country?

(Note; I'm not saying what happened in Gaza is comparable to a poke, I'm just illustrating my point).

Yes you are. By purposefully using the word "poke" instead of something a little more severe you invite argument, and hanging a lantern on it doesn't change anything.

(Original post by MaceyThe)
I don't recall EVER seeing a TV program about Stalin or other Communists regimes, and the estimated 100million people that have been murdered by them, nor did I learn anything about it in school.

Your question's already been answered, OP, but proximity is also very relevent. The holocaust happened in our continent, in the western world which is more developed (and seen to be more civilised) than some of the war-torn, unstable countries you mentioned. The countries where it happened are so near to us, and we have ancestors who died in the holocaust and friends who remember it. It's much more immediate to our country than the atrocities in Cambodia or the Congo.

Not only are those comparisons ridiculous and hyperbolic, I find them to be offensive too. You say you visited Ann Frank's house - try visiting the concentration camps themselves. Trust me, I've been there and it was the most emotionally moving and powerful experience of my life. I strongly advise you to visit Auschwitz and see for yourself. I have no doubt you will come back wanting to revise your message.
I do agree with you on one point though - there are many other events which need to be recognised. However, instead of attempting to rank these catastrophes in order of importance, perhaps you should be proactive and raise awareness of them yourself.

(Original post by opaltiger)
Has it occurred to you that saying "oh, he MEANT catastrophe!" is not exactly doing much in favour of your argument? When a high-ranking member of the Israeli government says the Palestinians will bring upon themselves a catastrophe at the hands of all of Israel's might, I personally am not particularly concerned with whether he meant the Holocaust specifically or just any old catastrophe.

Misquoting anyone is bad. That is what I am debating. And while both are damning (to him), one is worse than the other. The Taliban are bad enough, I don't need to misquote them to prove that. And yet Diaz89 consistently does that.

It doesn't, but it certainly reveals a rather worrying mentality. You sure you want people like that leading a country?

Very worrying, indeed. I'd like to ask him a couple of questions to get to the crux of what he meant. I don't think a soundbite of what someone says does justice (not that saying I will commit a catastrophe isn't bad in itself).

Yes you are. By purposefully using the word "poke" instead of something a little more severe you invite argument, and hanging a lantern on it doesn't change anything.

Nope, I illustrating my point. Just because you say you are going to do x, does not mean that whatever action you take after you say you will do x is x. Reductio ad absurdum.

While that is true, the Holocaust was different from the Rwandan genocide in that, while the genocide in Rwanda was state sponsored and encouraged, the Holocaust was fully planned and executed by the state without civilians even having to get involved at all.